Defendant
operates the internet stores dealsgoing, sfcdirect, and
uptogethertek, through which it sold sunglasses using
counterfeit trademarks owned by plaintiffs Luxottica Group
S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc. It also operates the internet store
royalwaytrade, through which it sold earrings bearing
counterfeit trademarks owned by plaintiff Van Cleef &
Arpels SA. Plaintiffs Luxottica and Oakley filed suit against
defendant under docket number 16-cv-487. Plaintiff Van Cleef
& Arpels filed suit against defendant under docket number
16-cv-1227. Both cases involve claims under the Lanham Act
and the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and
both are litigated by the same counsel. And in both,
plaintiffs now move for summary judgment and seek an award of
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, at least $90, 000
in statutory damages each, and a permanent injunction
prohibiting defendant from selling counterfeit products
bearing the infringed-upon trademarks. The arguments
presented in each motion overlap significantly, so the two
motions will be addressed together. For the following
reasons, both motions for summary judgment are granted in
favor of plaintiffs, permanent injunctions shall be entered,
and in each case, statutory damages shall be awarded in the
amount of $60, 000, along with reasonable attorney's fees
and costs.

I.
Legal Standards

Summary
judgment is appropriate if the movant shows that there is no
genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).
A genuine dispute as to any material fact exists if
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). The
party seeking summary judgment has the burden of establishing
that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact.
See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). A court must “construe all facts and reasonable
inferences in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party.” Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck, &
Co., 735 F.3d 962, 965 (7th Cir. 2013).

II.
Background

Plaintiffs
Luxottica Group S.p.A. and Oakley, Inc. own a valid and
incontestable trademark in the word “Wayfarer, ”
registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
under the number 595, 513.[1] 1:16-cv-487, [85] ¶
1.[2]Defendant operates multiple internet stores
set in eBay's online marketplace. 1:16-cv-487, [85]
¶ 6. Defendant advertised and sold sunglasses that it
described in its product listings as “Vintage
1980's Wayfarer Fashion Sunglasses Dark Lens Black Frame
Unisex, ” “Fashion Sunglasses Wayfarer Style
Black Frame w/ Dark Lens Retro Square Glasses, ” and
“Vintage 1980's Wayfarer Fashion Sunglasses Dark
Lens Black Frame Mens Womens, ” using the eBay seller
IDs dealsgoing, sfcdirect, and uptogethertek, respectively.
1:16-cv-487, [85] ¶¶ 2-4. Defendant listed the
sunglasses for a few dollars each, and offered to sell and
ship the sunglasses to potential customers throughout the
United States, including Illinois. 1:16-cv-487, [85]
¶¶ 2-4. Luxottica had not authorized or licensed
defendant to use its Wayfarer trademark. 1:16-cv-487, [85]
¶ 5.

Plaintiff
Van Cleef & Arpels SA holds valid trademarks in a
four-leaf-clover design, known as the Alhambra trademarks and
registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office
under the numbers 4, 037, 174 and 4, 653, 258. 1:16-cv-1227,
[59] ¶ 1. Defendant operates the eBay online marketplace
account royalwaytrade. 1:16-cv-1227, [59] ¶ 3. Through
that store, defendant offered for sale and sold earrings that
it described as “2x 1 Black Four Leaf Clover White
Pearl Stud Earrings Ear Studs, ” but which bore
counterfeit versions of the Alhambra trademarks. Plaintiff
had not authorized or licensed defendant to use its
trademarks. 1:16-cv-1227, [59] ¶ 3. Defendant listed the
earrings for $6.05 CAD (but said it also accepted payment in
U.S. dollars), and offered to sell and ship the earrings to
potential customers throughout the United States, including
Illinois. 1:16-cv-1227, [59] ¶¶ 2, 4.

Defendant
sold the sunglasses and earrings despite having some
procedures in place designed to avoid listing or selling
infringing products. 1:16-cv-487, [87] ¶ 8;
1:16-cv-1227, [62] ¶ 6. For example, defendant sells
only unbranded merchandise, and employees are instructed to
cross-reference product listings against an internal
trademark database, as well as trademark databases maintained
by the United States Patent and Trademark Office and others.
1:16-cv-487, [87] ¶ 8; 1:16-cv-487, [84-1] ¶¶
3-4; 1:16-cv-1227, [62] ¶ 6; 1:16-cv-1227, [58-1]
¶¶ 3-4. If an item is found to be potentially
infringing, or if complaints of infringement are received,
the item is delisted. 1:16-cv-487, [84-1] ¶ 5;
1:16-cv-1227, [58-1] ¶ 5. Upon receiving notice of these
lawsuits, defendant immediately removed the product listings
at issue. 1:16-cv-487, [87] ¶ 10; 1:16-cv-1227, [62]
¶ 8.

III.
Analysis

A.
Summary Judgment

In both
cases, plaintiffs seek summary judgment on their federal
claims of trademark infringement and counterfeiting under 15
U.S.C. § 1114 and false designation of origin under 15
U.S.C. § 1125(a), and their Illinois claim, based on the
same conduct, under the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act, 815 ILCS § 510/1 et seq. To
succeed on those claims, plaintiffs must show that the
trademarks are protectable and that defendant's
unauthorized use creates a likelihood of confusion among
consumers as to the source, affiliation, connection, or
sponsorship of defendant's products. CAE, Inc. v.
Clean Air Eng'g, Inc., 267 F.3d 660, 673-74 (7th
Cir. 2001); Sands, Taylor & Wood Co. v. Quaker Oats
Co., 978 F.2d 947, 957 (7th Cir. 1992) (“The
‘keystone' of trademark infringement is
‘likelihood of confusion' as to source,
affiliation, connection or sponsorship of goods or services
among the relevant class of customers and potential
customers.”). That standard applies to both the federal
trademark claims and the state-law claims. See Schutt
Mfg. Co. v. Riddell, Inc., 673 F.2d 202, 207 (7th Cir.
1982); Tarin v. Pellonari, 253 Ill.App.3d 542, 551
(1st Dist. 1993).

1.
The Wayfarer Trademark

Defendant
concedes that the Wayfarer trademark is valid and
incontestable, that Luxottica has the exclusive right to use
the trademark in commerce, and that defendant used it without
authorization to sell its goods. Defendant does not respond
to Luxottica's assessment of the likelihood of confusion,
but because defendant does dispute liability, this element
will be briefly addressed. Courts employ a seven-factor test
to determine likelihood of confusion: “(1) the
similarity between the marks in appearance and suggestion;
(2) the similarity of the products; (3) the area and manner
of concurrent use; (4) the degree of care likely to be
exercised by consumers; (5) the strength of the
plaintiff's mark; (6) any evidence of actual confusion;
and (7) the intent of the defendant to ‘palm off'
his product as that of another.” Sorensen v. WD-40
Co., 792 F.3d 712, 726 (7th Cir. 2015), cert.
denied, 136 S.Ct. 801 (2016). No single factor is
dispositive, but factors (1), (6), and (7) are especially
important. Id. Whether likelihood of confusion
exists is generally a question of fact, but may be resolved
on summary judgment “if the evidence is so one-sided
that there can be no doubt about how the question should be
answered.” CAE, 267 F.3d at 677 (quoting
Door Sys., Inc. v. Pro-Line Door Sys., Inc., 83 F.3d
169, 173 (7th Cir.1996)). Luxottica provides sufficient
evidence to clear that bar, leaving no doubt that a
likelihood of confusion exists among consumers.

&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;For
example, Luxottica submits evidence showing that defendant
used an identical mark in connection with the same type of
product (sunglasses). Given that defendant placed the mark in
the title of the product listing, where a consumer might
expect to find a brand name, consumers would be likely to
attribute both defendant&#39;s products and genuine Luxottica
products to the same source. Luxottica also provides evidence
that both it and defendant sell their products online and to
the same general audience (those who search for sunglasses
online), who do not have the ability to inspect the physical
products before purchase. This supports a finding that there
is a likelihood of confusion, because &ldquo;[t]he more
widely accessible and inexpensive the products and services,
the more likely that consumers will exercise a lesser degree
of care and discrimination in their purchases.&rdquo;
Sorensen, 792 F.3d at 730 (quoting CAE, 267
F.3d at 683)). And Luxottica submits evidence, including
articles and advertisements from various news and fashion
publications, that the Wayfarer brand is well-known and
well-regarded, which is relevant to the fifth factor ...

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.